As a state senator in January 2003, Leslie Byrne co-signed a letter warning against getting into a preemptive Iraq war that had nothing to do with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Byrne didn't have to speak up, but she did so because it was the right thing to do. Gerry Connolly said nothing about Iraq in 2003, except for his equivocal comments in The Democrat newsletter reprinted below.
Fast forward to December 20, 2003; Leslie Byrne wrote a letter to the editor in the Washington Post defending Howard Dean's anti-war position. Gerry Connolly said nothing. Also in 2005, 2006, and 2007...Gerry Connolly also said nothing about the Iraq war. For someone who "opposed George Bush's war in Iraq from the beginning," Connolly was awfully quiet about it, that's for sure.
Now it's April 2008. Both Leslie Byrne and Gerry Connolly are running for Congress. Byrne has signed the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. Gerry Connolly has not, nor has he released his own plan or spoken out against the Iraq war before now, as many other candidates (e.g., Judy Feder in the 10th) have done.
So here's Gerry Connolly's conundrum. His campaign has conducted two polls and has discovered (surprise surprise!) that the vast majority of Democratic primary voters in the 11th CD believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Yet Connolly does not have any record of opposing the war, not in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007. So -- total coincidence I'm sure -- Connolly's first campaign mailer touts his opposition to the Iraq war "from the beginning."
Yet there's no historical record -- statements, actions -- of this opposition. None whatsoever. If anything, there's evidence that Connolly was favorably inclined towards the war through his apparent inaction in getting an anti-war resolution passed by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors (it never passed), or in his lack of public statements about the war until now.
At the minimum, this campaign mailer's claim that Gerry Connolly "opposed George Bush's war in Iraq from the beginning" is not one supported by any public evidence. At the worst, it's knowingly disingenuous to the people of the 11th CD.
Perhaps these voters tell themselves that none of this matters for purposes of the race in VA-11, because Bush will be gone next year. Perhaps they assume, aided by things like Connolly's mailer, that Connolly is just as progressive as Byrne.
I predict careful cautious Connolly won't ever be as explicitly progressive as Byrne was in her interview with Matt Stoller, published in openleft.com on March 24, 2008.
1) How would you have voted on the war funding bill that the Democrats passed in May?
I would have voted against the war funding bill. I have been on record since January, 2003 as being against the war and the occupation of Iraq when a dozen former members of Congress and I sent a letter to President Bush not to embark on this foolhardy war.
2) What is your position on the Protect America Act that went through Congress in August, the bill that extended the President's eavesdropping power?
I would have voted against it. Warrantless wiretapping, cutting courts out of the process and giving the power to the administration, under any fair reading of the Constitution should be illegal.
3) What is your position on retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies?
I'm against immunity. The telecommunications companies who complied (not all did) have some of the highest priced legal talent available. They should have asked for a court ruling before handing over their customers records. I was very pleased that the US House found their voice on this issue.
The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Dec 20, 2003. pg. A.19Letter to the editor:
Your Dec. 18 editorial chides Howard Dean for being "Beyond the Mainstream" because he uses the words democracy and stable self- government interchangeably when talking about Iraq. Your paper doesn't like Dean saying that the capture of Saddam Hussein has not made us safer, although none of us has seen the terrorist warning improve from Code Yellow to Code Green. You don't like Dean's questioning the current Bush policy of using unlimited overseas deployment of National Guard units. You don't think that North Korea must join the community of nations in order to reduce the nuclear threat the Bush administration is unable to address.
You continue to support the multibillion-dollar boondoggle called missile defense -- better known as "Star Wars" -- despite the undeniable facts that have come to light about its efficacy, and you believe Dean should go along and keep his mouth shut. You disagree (no big surprise here) with Dean's position that trade agreements must include labor and environmental standards. Last but not least, you don't agree with Dean and millions of other Americans that the United States must shrink its military adventurism and work with other nations to make this a safer world.
Now who is out of the mainstream?
Leslie Byrne
Falls Church
The writer is a Democratic state senator representing the 34th District.
The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Dec 18, 2003. pg. A.34Editorial:
IN recent days a half-dozen leading Democrats have delivered major speeches on foreign policy. Mostly, they follow a similar track. Presidential candidates Howard Dean, John Edwards, John F. Kerry, Joseph I. Lieberman and Wesley K. Clark and shadow candidate Hillary Clinton accept many of the goals of the Bush administration but diverge sharply on the means to achieve them. All agree that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the danger that they will be acquired by terrorists, are critical threats. All chastise Mr. Bush for damaging U.S. alliances and all promise to rebuild them, while "internationalizing" Iraq's postwar reconstruction.
Yet there are important differences between the Democratic front- runner, Howard Dean, and the other five. In his speech Monday, Mr. Dean alone portrayed the recruiting of allies for Iraq as a means to "relieve the burden on the U.S." -- that is, to quickly draw down American forces. Only he omitted democracy from his goals for Iraq and the Middle East. And only Mr. Dean made the extraordinary argument that the capture of Saddam Hussein "has not made Americans safer."
Mr. Dean's carefully prepared speech was described as a move toward the center, but in key ways it shifted him farther from the mainstream. A year ago Mr. Dean told a television audience that "there's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies," but last weekend he declared that "I never said Saddam was a danger to the United States." Mr. Dean has at times argued that the United States must remain engaged to bring democracy to Iraq, yet the word is conspicuously omitted from the formula of "stable self-government" he now proposes. The former Vermont governor has compiled a disturbing record of misstatements and contradictions on foreign policy; maybe he will shift yet again, this time toward more responsible positions.
Mr. Dean's exceptionalism, however, is not limited to Iraq. It can be found in his support for limiting the overseas deployments of the National Guard -- a potentially radical change in the U.S. defense posture -- and in his readiness to yield to the demands of North Korea's brutal communist dictatorship, which, he told The Post's Glenn Kessler, "ought to be able to enter the community of nations." Mr. Dean says he would end all funding for missile defense, a program supported by the Clinton administration, and also has broken with Mr. Clinton's successful trade policies, embracing protectionism. Sadly, on trade his position is shared by every Democratic candidate except Mr. Lieberman (and Ms. Clinton).
It is Mr. Dean's position on Iraq, however, that would be hardest to defend in a general election campaign. Many will agree with the candidate that "the administration launched the war in the wrong way, at the wrong time, with inadequate planning, insufficient help and at unbelievable cost." But most Americans understand Saddam Hussein for what he was: a brutal dictator who stockpiled and used weapons of mass destruction, who plotted to seize oil supplies on which the United States depends, who hated the United States and once sought to assassinate a former president; whose continuing hold on power forced thousands of American troops to remain in the Persian Gulf region for a decade; who even in the months before his overthrow signed a deal to buy North Korean missiles he could have aimed at U.S. bases. The argument that this tyrant was not a danger to the United States is not just unfounded but ludicrous.
Mr. Dean may be arguing Saddam Hussein's insignificance in part because he is unwilling to make a commitment to Iraq's future. He appears eager to extract the United States from the Middle East as quickly as possible, rather than encourage political and economic liberalization. His speech suggests a significant retreat by the United States from the promotion of its interests and values in the world. Mr. Edwards laid out a detailed and ambitious plan to prevent the spread of dangerous nuclear materials; Mr. Clark is proposing a new Atlantic Charter under which the United States would build an alliance to take on the transformation of the Middle East, among other initiatives. Mr. Dean's biggest idea is to triple U.S. contributions to a global AIDS fund -- an essential but narrow cause in which the United States would allow international institutions to take the lead. His most serious departure from the Democratic mainstream is not his opposition to the war. It is his apparent readiness to shrink U.S. ambitions, in Iraq and elsewhere, at a time when the safety of Americans is very much at stake.
Frankly, the conflict-of-interest stuff on the Metro to Dulles/Tyson's tunnel issue that Lowell dug up is far more disturbing to me than anything else I've read about Connolly. He actively worked for a path that would have enriched his employer in a conglomeration it has with Bechtel without making this conflict known.
Look, its politics as usual. Most politicians talk the talk but can't walk the walk.
Even without such a campaign, she didn't give any money to the race in the 11th. She didn't refer or introduce donors to Hurst, and I didn't see her at any fundraisers for the Congressional race. I could be wrong, but I don't think she hosted a single event for the Democratic candidate. Gerry did those things. His support for the guy who wanted to end the war does support the end of the war.